The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

Defendant

B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment (one million won of a fine) imposed by the court below against Defendant A is too unhued and unfair.

B. Defendant B provided the instant personal information to Defendant B for the purpose of: (a) pressureing the E-Medical Care Center in fact via F to withdraw the disciplinary action against D and J and compelling the reinstatement.

Therefore, Article 71 Subparag. 5 and Article 59 Subparag. 2 of the Personal Information Protection Act are recognized as "illegal purposes".

2. Determination

A. The prosecutor’s judgment on the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing against Defendant A is based on the statutory penalty, which takes into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate scope.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the judgment of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the absence of such exceptional circumstances.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no significant change in circumstances that may consider the sentencing of Defendant A following the lower judgment.

Examining the conditions of sentencing as indicated in the instant records and arguments, and the reasons for sentencing of the lower judgment, even if the Prosecutor considers all the circumstances asserted as the grounds for appeal, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed unreasonable.